Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,525,742 members, 5,781,281 topics. Date: Monday, 10 August 2020 at 04:52 PM

Who Created God? - Religion (4) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Who Created God? (8327 Views)

What created God ? A Response To Atheist Question / Who Created God? - An Invalid Question / My Idea On Who Created God (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 11:22am On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:
Obviously Allah created God
Lemme stop you here for a sec
1. Something which lacks actuality lacks the means to create. How could something have created ITSELF if it never existed?
2. You have no objective hard empirical evidence to demonstrate for the underlined claim. Prove me wrong.
3. Your statement also commits the special pleading fallacy. What stops me from claiming that the universe created itself i.e it is self existent?
Duh!!!
Foremost, your point no.3 has been bashed by scientific evidences.

"God didn't create himself into existence", anyone that thinks otherwise is not wise.
The fact is, God was always existing. HOW POSSIBLE?
1. We all know nothing can come out of nothing. In clearer statement, something can never be brought out of nothing. God cannot be brought out from nothing, man cannot, all matter or non-matter cannot be brought out from nothing.
2. Yet, somethings (very very many somethings) exist in this universe. Recall, they can never be gotten from nothing.
3.The only way this is possible was if there had always be a something or many something(s) {to then give rise to other somethings. If not, then presently the only thing that could be noted in the universe will be NOTHING.
4. For the theologist, God is the always existing something.
{That is how it is Missy, no need to thank me for the light shed, for God is the light.}

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 11:24am On Sep 26, 2019
Martinez39:
Wow! The balloon d'or for patience and perseverance in the face of the immense bullshit from religious simpletons goes to Sabrina. grin

No matter what you say, they will not be reasonable.
Instead of hiding behind the wall to throw jabs would you please come out and answer two Scientific/Logical questions
1. Is an infinite regression of Cause and effect possible with respect to the origin of the universe?
* This is with respect to the necessity of an "Uncaused First Cause"

2. Is it possible by any means to generate a "computer program" by an infinite numbers of juggling of several sets of alphanumeric characters?
* This is with respect to "the DNA being a kind of "Programming" of living things.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:04pm On Sep 26, 2019
LordReed:


How many times do I need to answer the question? Why does discussion need to be so tedious?
The answer to whether an infinite regression can occur with respect to the origin of the universe is extremely important.
Because, it's answer is simple YES or NO! Each option may thereafter require an explanation after the position is stated.

LordReed:

No, personal pronoun usage for non-humans has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with culture and tradition.
So why ask the obvious question?

A country for instance is feminine because it is supposed to be fertile and produce like a woman. A ship is feminine for it takes in loads of goods like a pregnant woman. There could be cultural reasons too.

LordReed:

That is not true and you know it. Besides you have not answered the question.
A non programmed Robot!!!
You will need to provide just one example. And if it a Robot, I will show you how it is programmed.

You question will be relevant when this "unprogrammed robot" is settled.

LordReed:

You need to understand what gravity is or my previous answer will not make sense. Gravity is the curvature of space-time not an attracting force between masses. Let me illustrate, imagine a trampoline upon which a cannonball is placed. The weight of the cannonball deforms the trampoline surface. If you then rolled a tennis ball along the edges of the trampoline it will begin to roll towards the cannonball because of the deformation caused by the cannonball. This is how gravity effects work which is why the uneven masses of particles coalesce because there is a deformation of space-time. It is the same way galaxies and stars formed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A

I asked a simple question:
Can gravity exist without mass?

You gave a correct description as :
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass .


I didn't even mention gravitational force which is the force of attraction between any two masses. Gravity itself is not a Force, it's more like a Field.

Check the @bolded and tell me what causes the "curvature in space time"?

The question again, can gravity exist without mass?

LordReed:

I don't understand what you are saying. If a random combination of words turns out to be meaningful are you saying you discard the meaning because it was arrived at by a random selection of alphanumeric characters?
Let's perform some intellectual exercise. On a Tree we hung three phrases
i. I am hungry!
ii. Cut me up!
iii. Give me water!

We wait for the tree to decide by dropping one of the three information.

Do you think that it is logical to accept any of these three as information from the tree?

How about if it is a trained Monkey?
Aren't we prone to believe that a trained monkey is communicating with us?

The difference between the Tree and the Trained monkey is the INTENT.

Even with proper phrases, without intent, there is no information. A random selection of complete phrases (not to speak of some random strings of words) is no information. QED!


LordReed:

Information does not always require intent. For example emissions from the sun contain information that let's know many things about the sun, it doesn't mean the sun has the intent to beam us information.
Alhaji LordReed!!!!

You will need to lecture me on how the sun contains information!! LOL!

LordReed:

When something is described as being like some other thing does it mean they are the same?
BASIC is like C++ and is like Python and Perl.
These are all Programming languages using different compilers and interpreters but similar in that respect but not the same.

A program is a program irrespective of the language and the target of operations.

The DNA is as such a biological Programming contains information/instructions acting on data.

LordReed:

You keep saying you've shown, where did you show it?

That I don't have data for something does not prove another thing that has no data too.

I am about correct information and I think people should have it. If it convinces you all well and good, if it doesn't thats your prerogative.

By the Law of Entropy:
The total entropy in the Universe increase and never decrease.

In lay man's terms: the meaning is that given enough time, every mass and energy in the universe would have completely dispersed throughout the universe (a steady state with nothing localised in space).

How does it prove that infinite regression is impossible?
i. The least entropy theoretically possible is ZERO (implication: a starting point/origin that cannot be exceeded)
ii. Projecting into the future leads to a maximum entropy where no further change in state of the universe is possible.

Can you see from the use of entropy of the universe alone that an infinite regression (of cause and effect) is impossible?
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 3:58pm On Sep 26, 2019
Awww, Jeez. Here we go again!
shadeyinka:

1. I actually meant Entropy and not the second law of thermodynamics (which even though is connected with entropy is also violated).

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time.

And by the Law of Entropy, I meant that: The total entropy in the Universe increase and never decrease.

In lay man's terms: the meaning is that given enough time, every mass and energy in the universe would have completely dispersed throughout the universe (a steady state with nothing localised in space).
You have to understand that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM. How do you know the universe is a closed system? The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged. Where does the cosmos come from? (Everything that exists outside our universe about which we know nothing). Do higher dimensions exist? How in the hell would you know this sh*t and why would you assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to something you cannot possibly understand?

How does it prove infinite regression is impossible?
i. The least entropy....

You can no more prove infinite regression than you can prove a god. That's the whole damn point! Physics breaks down at Planck Time. What do you not understand about that, huh? You are living in a universe (A house) and you are trying to make inductions and/or inferences about what is outside the house by looking at things inside the house. Stop doing that. We have no idea what the outside looks like!

Good lord! Why don't you go and get a degree in Physics prior to talking such nonsense?

Note that: using your analogy I have not tried to "infer what goes on outside the house based on what is happening in the house!". I have only pointed to the SOURCE as the origin specifying How, Why, What or When the universe was made
You don't get to assume the universe was made. Grow up.

the SOURCE is not a constant,
What source? You can know nothing about a source. Nothing at all.

Please just stop and go away.

All your inductions, deductions and what not are absolutely irrelevant in this subject if you cannot prove EXACTLY what you're trying to prove. This is a Deist argument and not a Theist (that I know you are!) argument. Even if I gave you everything, you could not prove it was your god and not an intelligent alien race that lived outside of time and space that initiated creation. You have not ruled out natural processes in any way. Like I said, you have brought nothing new or unique to the table. Your arguments are trite, juvenile and senseless.

Also, this is a religion forum. First, if any debate is going to happen, you should debate religion and/or the philosophy of religion here, not physics, or cosmology, or biology (sometimes they help the discussion, most times not). Second, not every user in these forums is a physicist, so most may not be well versed about it. That is no excuse to deliberately obfuscate the readers by covering your glaring logical fallacies with scientific languages thus distracting from the main subject matter on ground. Entropy has nada to do with theism and atheism.


I think you jump too soon to conclusions concerning the breaking of rules of logics. You have simply recited some memory verses.
Jumping to conclusions? Bwahahaha!!! grin grin. What a pathetic attempt at dismissing your crimes against logic. LOL!

It leaves us with no other conclusion that our existence was caused by "one who had always existed"!
Shut up and stop being a dweeb. You cannot possibly prove the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe or the cosmos. And even if it did, it is not evidence for your god. Also, spewing out pointless inferences and/or inductions, anecdotes etc do not help your case in the slightest.

Go play with some idiots in the sand box. You don't belong here with the big kids.
Cc. LordReed, Martinez39

6 Likes 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 3:59pm On Sep 26, 2019
Blabbermouth:

Duh!!!
Foremost, your point no.3 has been bashed by scientific evidences.

"God didn't create himself into existence", anyone that thinks otherwise is not wise.
The fact is, God was always existing. HOW POSSIBLE?
1. We all know nothing can come out of nothing. In clearer statement, something can never be brought out of nothing. God cannot be brought out from nothing, man cannot, all matter or non-matter cannot be brought out from nothing.
2. Yet, somethings (very very many somethings) exist in this universe. Recall, they can never be gotten from nothing.
3.The only way this is possible was if there had always be a something or many something(s) {to then give rise to other somethings. If not, then presently the only thing that could be noted in the universe will be NOTHING.
4. For the theologist, God is the always existing something.
{That is how it is Missy, no need to thank me for the light shed, for God is the light.}
Sorry to burst your bubble, blabbermouth, but idiotic presupposition nonsense means nothing to me. Either you have evidence for the existence of whatever you are calling god or you do not. It really is just that simple.

You do not get to define a god into existence. Obviously you have made your own version of god in which the question who made it is inane. Yet, it is completely obvious this version of god is simply an imaginary creation of your own. Have fun with your god. As far as I'm concerned, all you have asserted is that "Facts and evidence don't matter. I choose to believe in the god I have created!". Go have fun with your god belief.

Oh... I just got a phone call from your self-existing god. He wanted me to tell you "Hi", and to "quit being a pedantic ass.: Obviously "every religion on the planet has invented their own version of god just as you have"". Your god told me that he was completely fine with that.

3 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 4:51pm On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

Cc. LordReed


Bwahahahahahahaha!

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Thehumanlloydl: 5:19pm On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

Sorry to burst your bubble, blabbermouth, but idiotic presupposition nonsense means nothing to me. Either you have evidence for the existence of whatever you are calling god or you do not. It really is just that simple.

You do not get to define a god into existence. Obviously you have made your own version of god in which the question who made it is inane. Yet, it is completely obvious this version of god is simply an imaginary creation of your own. Have fun with your god. As far as I'm concerned, all you have asserted is that "Facts and evidence don't matter. I choose to believe in the god I have created!". Go have fun with your god belief.

Oh... I just got a phone call from your self-existing god. He wanted me to tell you "Hi", and to "quit being a pedantic ass.: Obviously "every religion on the planet has invented their own version of god just as you have"". Your god told me that he was completely fine with that.
When intellect overthrows intuition.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 5:42pm On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

Sorry to burst your bubble, blabbermouth, but idiotic presupposition nonsense means nothing to me. Either you have evidence for the existence of whatever you are calling god or you do not. It really is just that simple.

You do not get to define a god into existence. Obviously you have made your own version of god in which the question who made it is inane. Yet, it is completely obvious this version of god is simply an imaginary creation of your own. Have fun with your god. As far as I'm concerned, all you have asserted is that "Facts and evidence don't matter. I choose to believe in the god I have created!". Go have fun with your god belief.

Oh... I just got a phone call from your self-existing god. He wanted me to tell you "Hi", and to "quit being a pedantic ass.: Obviously "every religion on the planet has invented their own version of god just as you have"". Your god told me that he was completely fine with that.
Bullocks!!! Who signed up for that?
The question was who created God? Every theory, every logic, every reasoning whether by a theist or an atheist concurs with the
" There was always something " . Or else, even logic will lack actuality.
To the atheist, the always existing something is "They don't know, and God can't just be called in to fill in the gap."
To the theist: The always existing something is God. {The God they serve, whoever/ Whatsoever the God is.}
So the question "who created god" will thus be invalid (in the view of a theist) as they have ascribed the always existing something (someone) to God.
Now, do you comprehend?
Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 5:44pm On Sep 26, 2019
Thehumanlloydl:

When intellect overthrows intuition.
Sometimes, lack of comprehension can be mistakened for wisdom.
Cheers!!

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 5:55pm On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:
Awww, Jeez. Here we go again!

You have to understand that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM. How do you know the universe is a closed system? The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged. Where does the cosmos come from? (Everything that exists outside our universe about which we know nothing). Do higher dimensions exist? How in the hell would you know this sh*t and why would you assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to something you cannot possibly understand?



You can no more prove infinite regression than you can prove a god. That's the whole damn point! Physics breaks down at Planck Time. What do you not understand about that, huh? You are living in a universe (A house) and you are trying to make inductions and/or inferences about what is outside the house by looking at things inside the house. Stop doing that. We have no idea what the outside looks like!

Good lord! Why don't you go and get a degree in Physics prior to talking such nonsense?


You don't get to assume the universe was made. Grow up.


What source? You can know nothing about a source. Nothing at all.

Please just stop and go away.

All your inductions, deductions and what not are absolutely irrelevant in this subject if you cannot prove EXACTLY what you're trying to prove. This is a Deist argument and not a Theist (that I know you are!) argument. Even if I gave you everything, you could not prove it was your god and not an intelligent alien race that lived outside of time and space that initiated creation. You have not ruled out natural processes in any way. Like I said, you have brought nothing new or unique to the table. Your arguments are trite, juvenile and senseless.

Also, this is a religion forum. First, if any debate is going to happen, you should debate religion and/or the philosophy of religion here, not physics, or cosmology, or biology (sometimes they help the discussion, most times not). Second, not every user in these forums is a physicist, so most may not be well versed about it. That is no excuse to deliberately obfuscate the readers by covering your glaring logical fallacies with scientific languages thus distracting from the main subject matter on ground. Entropy has nada to do with theism and atheism.


Jumping to conclusions? Bwahahaha!!! grin grin. What a pathetic attempt at dismissing your crimes against logic. LOL!


Shut up and stop being a dweeb. You cannot possibly prove the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe or the cosmos. And even if it did, it is not evidence for your god. Also, spewing out pointless inferences and/or inductions, anecdotes etc do not help your case in the slightest.

Go play with some idiots in the sand box. You don't belong here with the big kids.
Cc. LordReed, Martinez39
My last two posts to you were the longest single pages I've ever composed on a theme like this. So, this one would be short.

The single most used form of attacks on Christians have been about the Unscientific and Indefensible postulates they present.

Scientifically, the universe is a closed system that is why the entropy of the universe will always increase and not decrease. Secondly, the only way of proving the the universe is not closed is either if it is gaining energy from somewhere or loosing energy to other places other than the Universe. Both of this has not yet been postulated nor demonstrated.

My sister, the universe is a closed system with boundaries stretching from +infinity to -infinity.

I hope you know that the words Cosmos and Universe are synonyms.
I think you are now the one inserting "Universe of gaps", for no other universe other than this has been detected. And even if it was mathematically described, it would most likely be a complex conjugate (in lay man's terms: a mirror image) of the physical universe. This would at best be the "Spiritual Realm".

I have proved to you that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the universe CANNOT exist using just entropy. You can prove me wrong by faulting the underlying physics.

You are protesting that I use Deists argument instead of Theist arguments and I laugh. Deism should actually lead to God. On a more serious note: I don't care a hoot about deism. But it doesn't mean theism is allergic to Scientific results and logical deductions.

You are quick to admit that you don't know what is happening outside the house yet you are quick to conclude that nothing is outside the house: and this your conclusion is made by rules that work only within the house. Is that not the same joke you make about Theists!?

Let me give you a Theist's Argument:

Gen1:1
In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said, Let there be Light and there was Light
...

Shalom

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 6:15pm On Sep 26, 2019
shadeyinka:

My last two posts to you were the longest single pages I've ever composed on a theme like this. So, this one would be short.

The single most used form of attacks on Christians have been about the Unscientific and Indefensible postulates they present.

Scientifically, the universe is a closed system that is why the entropy of the universe will always increase and not decrease. Secondly, the only way of proving the the universe is not closed is either if it is gaining energy from somewhere or loosing energy to other places other than the Universe. Both of this has not yet been postulated nor demonstrated.

My sister, the universe is a closed system with boundaries stretching from +infinity to -infinity.

I hope you know that the words Cosmos and Universe are synonyms.
I think you are now the one inserting "Universe of gaps", for no other universe other than this has been detected. And even if it was mathematically described, it would most likely be a complex conjugate (in lay man's terms: a mirror image) of the physical universe. This would at best be the "Spiritual Realm".

I have proved to you that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the universe CANNOT exist using just entropy. You can prove me wrong by faulting the underlying physics.

You are protesting that I use Deists argument instead of Theist arguments and I laugh. Deism should actually lead to God. On a more serious note: I don't care a hoot about deism. But it doesn't mean theism is allergic to Scientific results and logical deductions.

You are quick to admit that you don't know what is happening outside the house yet you are quick to conclude that nothing is outside the house: and this your conclusion is made by rules that work only within the house. Is that not the same joke you make about Theists!?

Let me give you a Theist's Argument:

Gen1:1
In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said, Let there be Light and there was Light
...

Shalom
Glory be to God.
Gen 1:1 encapsulated their big bang theory. What they just discovered some years ago had been documented thousands of years back, even the cause of it was written.
By the way, you and I reason very similarly, it's been long I heard someone spit out in this manner. Their science is failing them, their reasoning, rendered useless. Wiseness of man, is likened unto foolishness with God. Soon, I will dedicate a thread to this, rather than argue without results, we would enlighten {not us, but the spirit of God}. Your contribution will be highly appreciated.
....Grace and mercies rest upon thee, Amen.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 6:31pm On Sep 26, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:
Awww, Jeez. Here we go again!

You have to understand that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM. How do you know the universe is a closed system? The cosmos may be a closed system from which the Big Bang emerged. Where does the cosmos come from? (Everything that exists outside our universe about which we know nothing). Do higher dimensions exist? How in the hell would you know this sh*t and why would you assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to something you cannot possibly understand?



You can no more prove infinite regression than you can prove a god. That's the whole damn point! Physics breaks down at Planck Time. What do you not understand about that, huh? You are living in a universe (A house) and you are trying to make inductions and/or inferences about what is outside the house by looking at things inside the house. Stop doing that. We have no idea what the outside looks like!

Good lord! Why don't you go and get a degree in Physics prior to talking such nonsense?


You don't get to assume the universe was made. Grow up.


What source? You can know nothing about a source. Nothing at all.

Please just stop and go away.

All your inductions, deductions and what not are absolutely irrelevant in this subject if you cannot prove EXACTLY what you're trying to prove. This is a Deist argument and not a Theist (that I know you are!) argument. Even if I gave you everything, you could not prove it was your god and not an intelligent alien race that lived outside of time and space that initiated creation. You have not ruled out natural processes in any way. Like I said, you have brought nothing new or unique to the table. Your arguments are trite, juvenile and senseless.

Also, this is a religion forum. First, if any debate is going to happen, you should debate religion and/or the philosophy of religion here, not physics, or cosmology, or biology (sometimes they help the discussion, most times not). Second, not every user in these forums is a physicist, so most may not be well versed about it. That is no excuse to deliberately obfuscate the readers by covering your glaring logical fallacies with scientific languages thus distracting from the main subject matter on ground. Entropy has nada to do with theism and atheism.


Jumping to conclusions? Bwahahaha!!! grin grin. What a pathetic attempt at dismissing your crimes against logic. LOL!


Shut up and stop being a dweeb. You cannot possibly prove the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe or the cosmos. And even if it did, it is not evidence for your god. Also, spewing out pointless inferences and/or inductions, anecdotes etc do not help your case in the slightest.

Go play with some idiots in the sand box. You don't belong here with the big kids.
Cc. LordReed, Martinez39
Science and natural law says you are wrong, you still arguing that you are right. Your reasoning is blind and so are you {Blind in atheism}.
Cc. LordReed, our ambassador for nature, come and help her out of the quick sand. Prove that the natural laws used by shadeyinka against the view of milady is wrong.
Hahahahahah, no burden on me here, lemme sip Chapman and watch.
Check out the new definition of ATHEISTS.
Atheist: (noun)
1. People of "other possible possibilities " either it holds any ground or it doesn't (in science and reasoning). As long as it doesn't state the dreadful "surely, there is God".
.....Hallelujah.

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 8:09pm On Sep 26, 2019
shadeyinka:

The answer to whether an infinite regression can occur with respect to the origin of the universe is extremely important.
Because, it's answer is simple YES or NO! Each option may thereafter require an explanation after the position is stated.

How do you say yes or no to a thing you have no data about?


A non programmed Robot!!!
You will need to provide just one example. And if it a Robot, I will show you how it is programmed.

You question will be relevant when this "unprogrammed robot" is settled.

This is just absurd. What is the state of a robot before it has any programming put in?


I asked a simple question:
Can gravity exist without mass?

You gave a correct description as :


I didn't even mention gravitational force which is the force of attraction between any two masses. Gravity itself is not a Force, it's more like a Field.

Check the @bolded and tell me what causes the "curvature in space time"?

The question again, can gravity exist without mass?

I would have said no but some of the theoretical physics I am seeing says gravity can possibly exist without mass because it affects energy.


Let's perform some intellectual exercise. On a Tree we hung three phrases
i. I am hungry!
ii. Cut me up!
iii. Give me water!

We wait for the tree to decide by dropping one of the three information.

Do you think that it is logical to accept any of these three as information from the tree?

How about if it is a trained Monkey?
Aren't we prone to believe that a trained monkey is communicating with us?

The difference between the Tree and the Trained monkey is the INTENT.

Even with proper phrases, without intent, there is no information. A random selection of complete phrases (not to speak of some random strings of words) is no information. QED!

information
/ɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"

2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

What constitutes information has nothing to do with intent. Once a meaning can be deduced, information is being transmitted.


Alhaji LordReed!!!!

You will need to lecture me on how the sun contains information!! LOL!

How are sunspots measured?


BASIC is like C++ and is like Python and Perl.
These are all Programming languages using different compilers and interpreters but similar in that respect but not the same.

A program is a program irrespective of the language and the target of operations.

The DNA is as such a biological Programming contains information/instructions acting on data.

The question is how is it the same with computer code?



By the Law of Entropy:
The total entropy in the Universe increase and never decrease.

In lay man's terms: the meaning is that given enough time, every mass and energy in the universe would have completely dispersed throughout the universe (a steady state with nothing localised in space).

How does it prove that infinite regression is impossible?
i. The least entropy theoretically possible is ZERO (implication: a starting point/origin that cannot be exceeded)
ii. Projecting into the future leads to a maximum entropy where no further change in state of the universe is possible.

Can you see from the use of entropy of the universe alone that an infinite regression (of cause and effect) is impossible?

You should immediately publish this your scientific finding that says the universe was at zero entropy at the beginning of the universe. I think you'll have a shot at a Nobel prize.

Oga sir, nobody knows what the entropy levels were for certain.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 8:28pm On Sep 26, 2019
LordReed:


How do you say yes or no to a thing you have no data about?



This is just absurd. What is the state of a robot before it has any programming put in?



I would have said no but some of the theoretical physics I am seeing says gravity can possibly exist without mass because it affects energy.



information
/ɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"

2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

What constitutes information has nothing to do with intent. Once a meaning can be deduced, information is being transmitted.



How are sunspots measured?



The question is how is it the same with computer code?




You should immediately publish this your scientific finding that says the universe was at zero entropy at the beginning of the universe. I think you'll have a shot at a Nobel prize.

Oga sir, nobody knows what the entropy levels were for certain.
Hahahaha, you want to disrupt nature.
Laughing my ass out in calculus.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:03pm On Sep 26, 2019
LordReed:


How do you say yes or no to a thing you have no data about?
You are using an escapist strategy. If entropy increases in the universe, it must have a starting value. It is enough proof.

LordReed:

This is just absurd. What is the state of a robot before it has any programming put in?
If that's the case; the Robot is Dead or Lifeless! (Empty carcass)

LordReed:

I would have said no but some of the theoretical physics I am seeing says gravity can possibly exist without mass because it affects energy.
There is no one verifiable Scientific evidence that show that gravity exist without mass.

LordReed:

Information
/ɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
"a vital piece of information"

2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

What constitutes information has nothing to do with intent. Once a meaning can be deduced, information is being transmitted.
Information is always a two way thing:
1. The transmitter (most important)
2. The reciever (decoder)
The second definition says:
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
Who conveys (passed across) the information ?: the transmitter!
Who represents an information by a particular arrangements or sequence of things? :The transmitter!

And you say there is no intent!!!

If I scribble a meaningless array of characters and you could read two words "come.here", what have I communicated to you?

No! You need to try harder! There must be an intent before a transmitted sequence of things can be called an information.

LordReed:

How are sunspots measured?
So what is the sun communicating to us with its sun spots? That it is hungry!!??

LordReed:

The question is how is it the same with computer code?
The DNA contains instructions just as codes contain instructions.
The DNA contain data as codes contain data
The DNA acts on input and output data as codes act on input and output data.

If you don't understand this, you are being deliberately mischievous!


LordReed:

You should immediately publish this your scientific finding that says the universe was at zero entropy at the beginning of the universe. I think you'll have a shot at a Nobel prize.

Oga sir, nobody knows what the entropy levels were for certain.

Read my quote again:
"Least entropy THEORETICALLY possible is Zero".
You probably now need some bifocal lenses. LOL!

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 10:23pm On Sep 26, 2019
Blabbermouth:

Glory be to God.
Gen 1:1 encapsulated their big bang theory. What they just discovered some years ago had been documented thousands of years back, even the cause of it was written.
By the way, you and I reason very similarly, it's been long I heard someone spit out in this manner. Their science is failing them, their reasoning, rendered useless. Wiseness of man, is likened unto foolishness with God. Soon, I will dedicate a thread to this, rather than argue without results, we would enlighten {not us, but the spirit of God}. Your contribution will be highly appreciated.
....Grace and mercies rest upon thee, Amen.
Thanks so much.
They've always presented atheism as synonymous with Scientific and Logical deductions and Theism as synonymous to lack of Scientific education.

Science is actually showing that God, the Uncaused First Cause must
Exist.

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by MissWrite(f): 1:54am On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:


The law of entropy actually proves otherwise. Let me prove it by projecting to the future rather than the past.
According to the law of entropy, there comes a time in the future when every atom, molecule, energy is completely dispersed throughout the universe. At that point, no further change in state of the universe is possible. The second law of thermodynamics is violated with an infinite regression.

The second law of thermodynamics – increase or constancy in entropy – doesn’t negate the possibility of infinite regression at all, actually.

You referred to the Heat Death of the universe or Big Freeze – the point at which all usable energy has been turned into unusable energy. When entropy is maximum, and there is no heat gradient anymore to achieve work. The universe would become an eternally expanding, cooling entity of ‘nothingness’. This may sound paradoxical, but in physics ‘nothing’ refers to the absence of everything but quantum fluctuations. The conjecture on the universe’s fate does not end with heat death; there is also the prediction that heat death would be followed by either The Big Rip or Vacuum Decay, eventually kick-starting a new universe from the quantum fluctuations left behind, which possess a non-zero probability of becoming ‘something’ (the exact occurrence which is now assumed to have preceded the Big Bang). The occurrence of The Big Rip would depend on the behaviour of dark energy – an entity that has been discovered to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe, usurping the influence of the amount of matter+energy (normal stuff) in deciding how quickly we approach heat death, and thereby preventing the likelihood of contraction and implosion (the Big crunch) where the quantity of ‘normal stuff’ might have exceeded the critical threshold in order to stop expansion. The occurrence of vacuum decay would depend on whether we currently find ourselves in a false or true stable state, that is, if the possibility of quantum tunnelling would arise.

All this means is that, in spite of that attainment of thermal equilibrium, things still happen. Our kind of life and civilization would be over long before the death of the last star when the universe is plunged into darkness, but there still is the possibility that other life forms would be supported throughout the years leading up to heat death. After that the universe would be cold and lifeless until it repeats itself. This conjecture is supported by Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem and the presence of quantum fluctuations in the absence of ‘something’.

Therefore, the fact that things can never stop existing supports the possibility of infinite regression.




I think you should rephrase by saying

All Physical things have an origin i.e. After the Big Bang (when the expansion started cooling down) .
Unfortunately, your reference point is too late in history to conclude the Absolute impossibility of such occuring; for, before the BB, there was absolutely NOTHING. The "gravitational singularity" is not a thing but an abstract concept. Secondly, every physical law and Scientific constants we use now came into effect well aftwr the BB. Hence, you not "witnessing" things created from nothing doesnt hold water.

Well yes, before the Big Bang there was nothing. Nothing means quantum fluctuations with a non-zero probability of becoming something. That, in essence, isn’t ‘nothing’. Because there was never ‘nothing’.

There is an infinite number of ways stuff can be arranged. This arrangement is called a ‘microstate.’ The human being is a microstate of ‘stuff.’ And that specific arrangement has a non-zero probability of occurring, therefore, it has occurred. But relatively, some microstates are way more likely to exist than others. The possible microstates of ‘Something’ are infinite, but there is only one way for ‘nothing’ to exist. It is therefore more probable to have something rather than nothing, and thus, the state of ‘nothingness’ is highly unstable. It will eventually produce something. Please note that we are talking about quantum fluctuations and not literally nothing, which is an ‘impossibility’. Just by trying to define nothing, you would be acknowledging that there was, in fact, something to define.

We don’t have to ‘witness’ things to make conjecture. What we base our conclusions upon is the evidence of things, just like the afterglow (still visible today) hints at the occurrence of the Big Bang. The rest is inductive reasoning: we have more reason to believe that things that happen have happened before and will happen again, than believing in things which have never been evidenced. The task here is not to prove things conclusively (which is logically impossible), it is simply to show that infinite regression is logically possible. And that is done by showing that it is not logically impossible. We have, after all, witnessed the emergence of one universe already. Infinite regress might be frustrating because it appears to ‘beg the question’ (for every effect I would raise you a cause) but then, the occurrence is, in fact, likely.


First, I have proved that an infinite regression is impossible. The theory of "Multiverse" must terminate at a point.

At least we know that the present universe has an origin. A question to be answered really is how long did the gravitational singularity exist before the BB took place AND what caused its change of state??
The present law: First law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Second law of thermodynamics (entropy) show that in the eternal past, there was a singular SOURCE with the ability to "Self Initiate" a change: Everything we see and every energy come from this SOURCE.

You can call the SOURCE any name you like: He isnt a THING else, He'll be just a CONSTANT that cannot produce a change.

There is no saying how many universes may exist in the multiverse, but the key is that the universes are only casually linked in the multiverse, and the fate of one universe seems to have no bearing on the other universes of the multiverse. Universes are clusters – the closed system.

The ‘thing’ that preceded the big bang that created our universe was the ‘nothingness’ left behind by the destruction of its predecessor – quantum fluctuations. As earlier said, given long enough, these quantum fluctuations will explore all possible microstates simply because there is a propensity to do so. The probability to become matter is not zero. All this stuff about attaching probability as a quality to existence, making a dent on the validity of deterministic causation (especially at the subatomic level), was started by Bohr and Heisenberg. It might feel like science is shifting the goal post in claiming the entity of ‘nothingness’. But there it is. That is the recent argument.



I think if you define CONSCIOUSNESS as SELF AWARENESS or SELF IDENTITY would simplify the issue considerably.

Yes, a plant will respond to sunlight: but is this a prove of Consciousness?
Consciousness cannot exist without the ability to experience both Pain and Comfort AND a Will/Volition to choose.
Emotions and Logic are motivations to exercising the Will/Volition.

With this in mind, one must necessarily differentiate between CONSCIOUSNESS and IRRITABILITY. That is the fact that a plant reacts to the presence of sunlight doesn't prove that it is Conscious: for we must have to establish that the plant can experience Pain/Comfort and a Volition to choose.

It is extremely easy to demostrate forms of Irritability in the Laboratory (eg. Photochromic Lenses) but Consciousness takes a lot more. It is indeed the SOFTWARE that runs the Hardware of a Being: It is called the SOUL of a being. Is the plant aware of the sunlight?
Is the ball aware of the wall? No!

If you define consciousness as self-awareness or self-identity, then we can conclude that anything which acts in its own interest is self-aware. This means that a plant which acts in a way to maximize its food supply is self-aware. You call it irritability – response to stimuli, but every action is a response to a stimulus. The point is: what is the purpose of that action? If the action is in interest of ‘self’ then there must be awareness of ‘self.’

Even though I disagree with your definition of consciousness in general, I strongly disagree that sentience is a deciding factor of consciousness. I believe you are now using the word interchangeably with the term ‘awake’, which is a popular usage but it doesn’t make consciousness nearly as interesting as it actually is, because it does not account for the ego-component. In your case, consciousness is easily reduced to the interaction between sensory neurons and the brain, which is all a manifestation of the interactions between physical matter. Response to stimuli. Irritability. And you said yourself – the distinction between consciousness and irritability must be made. And that’s why, in my previous post, I set aside the uninteresting component of consciousness – the thinking and feeling ‘self’, which are simply interactions between neurons, corresponding to response to stimuli at the cellular level – and extricated the part that I called the ‘being.’ Which still is a component of all matter, but it also is a unique perspective from which the universe observes itself.

The concept of free-will is a fallacy. You do things for two reasons, one – because you want to; two – because you are compelled to. And because you cannot will yourself to want anything, you have no control over your wants. If you have no control over your wants, then you do not have free-will.

When I referred to ‘awareness’ of a wall by the wall, I am not referring to ‘knowledge.’ I am simply referring to the interaction between different configurations of matter, and their respect for density. The fact that a ball does not pass through a wall shows that matter has ‘acknowledged’ or registered a barrier. Awareness is necessary for the interaction of things. Or we can say, the interaction of things demonstrates awareness. There is only an unawareness of things that don’t exist.


Artificial Intelligence is First a Code and Sets of Data trained within some constraints to make human like choices. The fact that "artificial intelligence" look intelligent is simply because intelligent people coded it to act in manners similar to how intelligent humans would jave acted. This very well support my case.

If Consciousness is like artificial intelligence, can one really prove that its about chemical reactions or about an Intelligent Programmer?

Artificial Intelligence demonstrates how thought and emotions are a macro aggregation of binary questions. It is basically all a response to stimuli. “If this happens, then react this way.” It’s interaction between physical things. All things react in specific ways in the presence of another thing, down to one molecule of oxygen combining with two molecules of hydrogen to form water. Not everything is aggregated to mimic thought and emotion as perceived in humans. Human beings have observed and understood the universe (or the Earth) enough to replicate and insert deterministic causation into an AI. Deterministic causation is not a wonder; it is simply the fundament of existence. But because two events cannot be isolated, in nature, to conclusively determine that one caused the other, we must accept that causation is practically probabilistic. With an AI, working inside out, determinism becomes more apparent as the way things really are.



My frame of reference to chaos is the Big Bang. Some scientists have tried to evade the problem of the big bang being an "explosion" for it breaks the law of entropy. Order cannot come out of disorder. The new theory (modifying the BBT) has to do with a controlled expansion (rather than a bang). Unfortunately, this also produces the big flaw that every planet, star and galaxy were fully wholly subset of the gravitational singularity: this is impossible.

Starting from the BB, how did Entropy suddenly began to reduce before the beginning to increase again?

How did electrons suddenly begin to move round nucleus of atoms? How did protons and neutrons suddenly realize that they should congregate in fairly equal numbers? Did every element start off from one giant atom and then progressively reduced to Hydrogen or did lighter atoms progressively coalesce to form larger and larger atoms?

Things I tell you are highly ordered when you compare it to the big bang period.

I put it to you that natural selection can only take place when the underlying AI codes that run living things are already in place.

In the interest of keeping it short: The Earth is not a closed system, therefore, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. The universe, however, is.




Artificial intelligence is First a Code/Algorithm and Training Data. These are products of intelligent minds and not random movements of electrons.

Iterations.



Of course, man can create his own gods BUT this is not synonymous with man creating God as a response to his fears.

The fact that you believe an Ultimate Being probably exist is a good step in the right direction BUT do you think you created Him out of your fears or out of logical necessity? At the end, it is either God exists or He doesn't.

If an Ultimate Being exist, the question is: Why this Universe?
Why this commotion of statistical odds called Earth?


The ultimate ‘being’ I believe in is not necessarily a ‘creator.’ It is simply the summation of all things, with an ego (analogous with the ego of a tree, a chair, a rat, a person) and the tendency to self-preserve. It won’t be a God, because a god is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all the other choice qualities. This being would just be ‘the objective truth.’ The objective morality that permits all things that can ever exist in order to sustain its own nature. As long as you can identify evil in the world, your morality is not supreme. And you are not the ultimate being.

The ultimate being is not localized to any universe. It must comprise everything that exists through infinity. Why this commotion of statistical odds called earth? Because that is the nature of this ultimate being that encompasses all existence, and it is selfish. It serves only its own morality. And from that perspective, nothing is evil or random.

4 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 9:24am On Sep 27, 2019
MissWrite:


The second law of thermodynamics – increase or constancy in entropy – doesn’t negate the possibility of infinite regression at all, actually.

You referred to the Heat Death of the universe or Big Freeze – the point at which all usable energy has been turned into unusable energy. When entropy is maximum, and there is no heat gradient anymore to achieve work. The universe would become an eternally expanding, cooling entity of ‘nothingness’. This may sound paradoxical, but in physics ‘nothing’ refers to the absence of everything but quantum fluctuations. The conjecture on the universe’s fate does not end with heat death; there is also the prediction that heat death would be followed by either The Big Rip, Vacuum Decay, eventually kick-starting a new universe from the quantum fluctuations left behind, which possess a non-zero probability of becoming ‘something’ (the exact occurrence which is now assumed to have preceded the Big Bang). The occurrence of The Big Rip would depend on the behaviour of dark energy – an entity that has been discovered to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe, usurping the influence of the amount of matter+energy (normal stuff) in deciding how quickly we approach heat death, and thereby preventing the likelihood of contraction and implosion (the Big crunch) where the quantity of ‘normal stuff’ might have exceeded the critical threshold in order to stop expansion. The occurrence of vacuum decay would depend on whether we currently find ourselves in a false or true stable state, that is, if the possibility of quantum tunnelling would arise.

All this means is that, in spite of that attainment of thermal equilibrium, things still happen. Our kind of life and civilization would be over long before the death of the last star when the universe is plunged into darkness, but there still is the possibility that other life forms would be supported throughout the years leading up to heat death. After that the universe would be cold and lifeless until it repeats itself. This conjecture is supported by Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem and the presence of quantum fluctuations in the absence of ‘something’.

Therefore, the fact that things can never stop existing supports the possibility of infinite regression.






Well yes, before the Big Bang there was nothing. Nothing means quantum fluctuations with a non-zero probability of becoming something. That, in essence, isn’t ‘nothing’. Because there was never ‘nothing’.

There is an infinite number of ways stuff can be arranged. This arrangement is called a ‘microstate.’ The human being is a microstate of ‘stuff.’ And that specific arrangement has a non-zero probability of occurring, therefore, it has occurred. But relatively, some microstates are way more likely to exist than others. The possible microstates of ‘Something’ are infinite, but there is only one way for ‘nothing’ to exist. It is therefore more probable to have something rather than nothing, and thus, the state of ‘nothingness’ is highly unstable. It will produce something. Please note that we are talking about quantum fluctuations and not literally nothing, which is an ‘impossibility’. Just by trying to define nothing, you would be acknowledging that there was, in fact, something to define.

We don’t have to ‘witness’ things to make conjecture. What we base our conclusions upon is the evidence of things, just like the afterglow (still visible today) hints at the occurrence of the Big Bang. The rest is inductive reasoning: we have more reason to believe that things that happen have happened before, than believing in things which have never been evidenced. The task here is not to prove things conclusively (which is logically impossible), it is simply to show that infinite regression is logically possible. And that is done by showing that it is not logically impossible. We have, after all, witnessed the emergence of one universe already. Infinite regress might be frustrating because it appears to ‘beg the question’ (for every effect I would raise you a cause) but then, the occurrence is, in fact, likely.




There is no saying how many universes may exist in the multiverse, but the key is that the universes are only casually linked in the multiverse, and the fate of one universe seems to have no bearing on the other universes of the multiverse. Universes are clusters – the closed system.

The ‘thing’ that preceded the big bang that created our universe was the ‘nothingness’ left behind by the destruction of its predecessor – quantum fluctuations. As earlier said, given long enough, these quantum fluctuations will explore all possible microstates simply because there is a propensity to do so. The probability to become matter is not zero. All this stuff about attaching probability as a quality to existence, making a dent on the validity of deterministic causation, was started by Bohr and Heisenberg. It might feel like science is shifting the goal post in claiming the entity of ‘nothingness’. But there it is. That is the recent argument.
Let's start from points were we agree.

1. There is a point when the Universe will have maximum entropy and there is no heat gradient anymore to achieve work.

2. For the sake of argument, let's agree that at the point of maximum entropy, what we have is the quantum fluctuations left behind, which possess a non-zero probability of becoming ‘something.

From these two, we need to postulate how "another" gravitational singularity can be formed for an infinite regression to become a reality.

These two however intuitively prevent this from occurring. If the universe has reached an equilibrium where no more work is possible AND
only quantum fluctuations are left behind. The quantum fluctuations would only be allowed to exist at "micro" levels as it will require energy from outside the universe to return all possible quantum fluctuations to a point of "singularity"!

Secondly, Poincare’s Recurrence Theorems result applies to isolated mechanical systems subject to some constraints, e.g., all particles must be bound to a finite volume. It would also be necessary to assume that the universe is bound by a finite volume. This you know is impossible for then, one must assume that the quantum fluctuations (after this steady state) must have volumes of discontinuity external to it.

In other words, the Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem is misapplied with respect to the universe.

Don't you think that It takes external energy to reduce the total entropy of s system?

In conclusion: An infinite regression of cause an effect with respect to the origin of the universe is impossible.










MissWrite:

If you define consciousness as self-awareness or self-identity, then we can conclude that anything which acts in its own interest is self-aware. This means that a plant which acts in a way to maximize its food supply is self-aware. You call it irritability – response to stimuli, but every action is a response to a stimulus. The point is: what is the purpose of that action? If the action is in interest of ‘self’ then there must be awareness of ‘self.’

The @bolded is completely incorrect: I believe you've heard of autonomous robots who seeks out light to charge it's battery and when the battery is full, moves away from the light to perform other functions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kR4vFLT3os

I can tell you that this robot is as dummy as it can get. It isn't self aware in any way as it is just responding to external stimulus: in this case light (serving a dual purpose of charging of robots power store and direction finder).

It is no different from the way plants behave. Is it possible to prove that plants are Conscious? No!
For you need to establish that plants can feel pain and pleasure. Not only that, but that it can choose based on Logics /emotion.

Even the sophisticated AI robot Sophia is not Conscious!


MissWrite:

Even though I disagree with your definition of consciousness in general, I strongly disagree that sentience is a deciding factor of consciousness. I believe you are now using the word interchangeably with the term ‘awake’ , which is a popular usage but it doesn’t make consciousness nearly as interesting as it actually is, because it does not account for the ego-component .

In your case, consciousness is easily reduced to the interaction between sensory neurons and the brain, which is all a manifestation of the interactions between physical matter.


Response to stimuli. Irritability. And you said yourself – the distinction between consciousness and irritability must be made. And that’s why, in my previous post, I set aside the uninteresting component of consciousness – the thinking and feeling ‘self’, which are simply interactions between neurons, corresponding to response to stimuli at the cellular level – and extricated the part that I called the ‘being.’ Which still is a component of all matter, but it also is a unique perspective from which the universe observes and creates itself.
My definition of Being Awake or Consciousness takes care of ego (for ego is just an emotion). Check my definition again. Ego is an emotion that asserts "I WANT!"
My Definition:

Consciousness cannot exist without the ability to experience both Pain and Comfort AND a Will/Volition to choose.
Emotions and Logic are motivations to exercising the Will/Volition.

Ego is an emotion!

Chemical reactions can't want!. They are bound to react with suitable reactants according to the rules of chemistry. I can behave proud before my wife but certainly think twice about being proud before Donald Trump.



MissWrite:

The concept of free-will is a fallacy. You do things for two reasons, one – because you want to; two – because you are compelled to. And because you cannot will yourself to want anything, you have no control over your wants. If you have no control over your wants, then you do not have free-will.
Free will is always bound by constraints but it doesn't negate free will.

You free to choose to prepare or not to prepare for an exam. Whichever path you take has consequences.

You are free to choose either to reply or not to reply to this post. Whichever path you take also has its consequences (however it may not be as grivous as failing an exam).

A prisoner doesn't have a free will of coming out of the prison except he has the power to overcome his constraints.

Freewill is exactly like Freedom. Whatever happens to one must happen to the other.

MissWrite, Would you consider yourself as FREE or Bound?

Freedom when used have consequences. Freewill is your choice of exercising your freedom within the limit of your constraints.


Like you are free to choose to believe or not to believe in a Creator: either choices have their consequences.


MissWrite:

When I referred to ‘awareness’ of a wall by the wall, I am not referring to ‘knowledge.’ I am simply referring to the interaction between different configurations of matter, and their respect for density. The fact that a ball does not pass through a wall shows that matter has ‘acknowledged’ or registered a barrier. Awareness is necessary for the interaction of things. Or we can say, the interaction of things demonstrates awareness. There is only an unawareness of things that don’t exist.
That isn't the definition of awareness except you intend to rewrite the English dictionary.


MissWrite:

Artificial Intelligence demonstrates how thought and emotions are a macro aggregation of binary questions. It is basically all a response to stimuli.
[/b]“If this happens, then react this way.” It’s interaction between physical things. All things react in specific ways in the presence of another thing, down to one molecule of oxygen combining with two molecules of hydrogen to form water. Not everything is aggregated to mimic thought and emotion as perceived in humans. Human beings have observed and understood the universe (or the Earth) enough to replicate and insert deterministic causation into an AI. Deterministic causation is not a wonder; it is simply the fundament of existence. But because two events cannot be isolated, in nature, to conclusively determine that one caused the other, we must accept that causation is probabilistic. With an AI, working inside out, determinism becomes more apparent as the way things really are.
[/quote]

I think you should ask the question:
Do AI robots feel?

AI is teaching a computer to make humanoid kinds of reaction to inputs. The question is, can a robot experience any kind of emotion or will.



MissWrite:


In the interest of keeping it short: The Earth is not a closed system, therefore, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. The universe, however, is.

I never said the earth was a closed system. The universe is!



MissWrite:


Iterations.

The ultimate ‘being’ I believe in is not necessarily a ‘creator.’ It is simply the summation of all things, with an ego (analogous with the ego of a tree, a chair, a rat, a person) and the tendency to self-preserve.

It won’t be a God, because a god is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all the other choice qualities. This being would just be ‘the objective truth.’ The objective morality that permits all things that can ever exist in order to sustain its own nature. As long as you can identify evil in the world, your morality is not supreme. And you are not the ultimate being.

The ultimate being is not localized to any universe. It must comprise everything that exists through infinity. Why this commotion of statistical odds called earth? Because that is the nature of this ultimate being that encompasses all existence, and it is selfish. It serves only its own morality. And from that perspective, nothing is evil or random.
Ego: Definition

ego
/ˈiːɡəʊ,ˈɛːɡəʊ/
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"he needed a boost to his ego"


A Tree isn't a personality
A Tree doesn't demonstrate self importance
A Tree doesn't have any kind of emotion
Animals such as rats may have Ego for they experience Emotion.

Note:
If Your Ultimate Being Has an Ego, then He must be a Personality.

Your Ultimate Being is not localised in the Universe, then He isn't made up of matter, energy, time and space.

Your argument against Him (God) stems from the Presence of Evil.

The last @bold seem to suggest you accuse God of selfishness!

Evil is a necessary offshoot of Freewill. That's why within the Physical Universe, evil exist only here on earth.

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 10:42am On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:

You are using an escapist strategy. If entropy increases in the universe, it must have a starting value. It is enough proof.

So what if has a starting value? That does nothing to disprove the possibility of an infinite regression.


If that's the case; the Robot is Dead or Lifeless! (Empty carcass)

Programmed robots are not alive either but keep running from the question. It is obvious you have nothing.


There is no one verifiable Scientific evidence that show that gravity exist without mass.

There is evidence gravity affects energy.


Information is always a two way thing:
1. The transmitter (most important)
2. The reciever (decoder)
The second definition says:
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
Who conveys (passed across) the information ?: the transmitter!
Who represents an information by a particular arrangements or sequence of things? :The transmitter!

And you say there is no intent!!!

If I scribble a meaningless array of characters and you could read two words "come.here", what have I communicated to you?

No! You need to try harder! There must be an intent before a transmitted sequence of things can be called an information.

That is not the case. Information is transmitted regardless of there being intent. The radio astronomy telescopes are receiving information even though no one is purposefully transmitting.


So what is the sun communicating to us with its sun spots? That it is hungry!!??

SMH at deliberate obtuseness.


Read my quote again:
"Least entropy THEORETICALLY possible is Zero".
You probably now need some bifocal lenses. LOL!

So what if the "Least entropy THEORETICALLY possible is Zero"? It proves nothing in this context.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 11:55am On Sep 27, 2019
LordReed:


So what if has a starting value? That does nothing to disprove the possibility of an infinite regression.
It does.
If it has a starting value, it means it doesn't have an infinite progression to the past. Since entropy is increasing, it neither has an infinite progression to the future. QED

LordReed:

Programmed robots are not alive either but keep running from the question. It is obvious you have nothing.
Dead as in dead battery.

LordReed:

There is evidence gravity affects energy.
I said there is no evidence that gravity can exist without mass.

LordReed:

That is not the case. Information is transmitted regardless of there being intent. The radio astronomy telescopes are receiving information even though no one is purposefully transmitting.
Just like the trees are communicating to us that their leaves are green!
And snakes are communicating that they could be poisonous!

SMH at deliberate obtuseness.

LordReed:

So what if the "Least entropy THEORETICALLY possible is Zero"? It proves nothing in this context.

It proves that there is an origin of things.
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 12:22pm On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:
I have proved to you that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the universe CANNOT exist using just entropy. You can prove me wrong by faulting the underlying physics.
So what?

Even if what you postulate is correct, that does not prove a god. The proper conclusion is a result concerning Physics. But once you have established that (I can, but I am not going to waste my time checking if it is possible) you still have to plug in your god, and that act of inserting a god must be accompanied with substance and proof.

Claiming all sorts of things about entropy is one thing, arriving at a god conclusion is another!

shadeyinka:
You are quick to admit that you don't know what is happening outside the house yet you are quick to conclude that nothing is outside the house: and this your conclusion is made by rules that work only within the house. Is that not the same joke you make about Theists!?
How thick are you? Really?

"You can NOT know what is outside the house". "You can NOT compare that which is inside with that which is outside". "All Physics breaks down at Planck Time".

Learn to f*cking read.

Blabbermouth:

Bullocks!!! Who signed up for that?
The question was who created God? Every theory, every logic, every reasoning whether by a theist or an atheist concurs with the
" There was always something " . Or else, even logic will lack actuality.
To the atheist, the always existing something is "They don't know, and God can't just be called in to fill in the gap."
To the theist: The always existing something is God. {The God they serve, whoever/ Whatsoever the God is.}
So the question "who created god" will thus be invalid (in the view of a theist) as they have ascribed the always existing something (someone) to God.
Now, do you comprehend?
The only thing you've succeeded in accomplishing here is differentiate theism from atheism - something I already knew!

All I'm asking from you clowns is that objective hard empirical evidence be demonstrated for YOUR claimed deity, without false analogies, word salads, confirmation bias and appeals to ignorance, before we can consider said deity as an option for the source of the universe. Natural processes have yet to be ruled out. All you theists do is look at the universe first and then attempt to define your god to suit the universe's features. This is dishonest! Demonstrate YOUR deity first.

Notice how in all my arguments, I have never once asserted that a source is impossible. All I've stated is that we can NOT know if there's a source, and even if we do, we can NOT know the nature of the source. Am I asking for too much, hmm? sad

Blabbermouth:

Your reasoning is blind and so are you {Blind in atheism}.
Smartest thing you have said in this thread after two posts of complete bull$hit! Atheists do not assert that which they can NOT know. Yes, we are blind to your god and blind to your inane and unsubstantiated assertions. When you come up with some REAL evidence for the origin of the universe as relating to your god, everyone will be able to see it, not just you. When you begin demonstrating your god with facts and evidence, not the God of the Gaps bull$hit, we will all be able to see it. Until then, you're just a puddle struggling in the ground and amazed at how the shape of the ground was made exactly for him. Pathetic really, if I do say so myself. Still, I believe if you are beginning to recognize blindness in atheists, perhaps you can begin to see it in yourself and stop making stupid assertions based on sh*t you know nothing about.

Blubber-brain blabbermouth said,
People of "other possible possibilities" either it holds any ground or it doesn't (in science and reasoning), As long as it doesn't state the dreadful "Surely there is God... Hallelujah!.....
Don't be a cowardly strawman. Insert the words, without facts and evidence and you are spot on target.

Are you getting smarter? You almost understand. You should hang around these parts for some time. You might catch on smiley wink


It's about time people stopped going to the wrong shops to sell their snake oil.

Once more a couple of theists come in here and make crazy assertions about their god using physics. Assertions, that if taken to the land of academia and physics, and empirically verified to be true, would result in a Nobel Prize!

I do not see a Nobel. Neither do I see any sign of links to peer reviewed research evidencing any deity. Nothing on any news network puzzlingly. Even stranger, the Vatican seems to have missed all this news. No massed throngs in St Peter's being addressed by a jubilant pontiff.

NO! Just a bunch of Billy No-Names making unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims and pulling out false analogies from their arse like scraps of spaghetti. If only we could piece all this together really. LOL. Woo woo overload indeed!

Therefore, the assertions are nonsense.

2 Likes 2 Shares

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 12:38pm On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:

It does.
If it has a starting value, it means it doesn't have an infinite progression to the past. Since entropy is increasing, it neither has an infinite progression to the future. QED

This says nothing about what came before. You don't know anything about what came before even if you obtained the entropy value at the start of the universe.


Dead as in dead battery.

Keep running.


It proves that there is an origin of things.

So?
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 2:49pm On Sep 27, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

So what?

Even if what you postulate is correct, that does not prove a god. The proper conclusion is a result concerning Physics. But once you have established that (I can, but I am not going to waste my time checking if it is possible) you still have to plug in your god, and that act of inserting a god must be accompanied with substance and proof.

Claiming all sorts of things about entropy is one thing, arriving at a god conclusion is another!
The fact is that the an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the creation of the universe alone does not prove God but it shows that something/someone outside this universe who is unbound by time, space, energy and mass initiated the change that led to the formation of this universe.

Except the BB was controlled by this external Force to the universe, the BB would have been an ordinary explosion which would result into chaos at best.

In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

I think this is enough deductions for the day.


XxSabrinaxX:


How thick are you? Really?

"You can NOT know what is outside the house". "You can NOT compare that which is inside with that which is outside". "All Physics breaks down at Planck Time".

Learn to f*cking read.
The fact that ALL physics and chemical laws breakdown before the BB and at times t less than the Planks time after the BB reinforces the fact that whatever initiated the creation/expansion of the universe cannot be subject to the laws of nature. You can't Empirically prove that which you cannot grasp.



The only thing you've succeeded in accomplishing here is differentiate theism from atheism - something I already knew!

All I'm asking from you clowns is that objective hard empirical evidence be demonstrated for YOUR claimed deity, without false analogies, word salads, confirmation bias and appeals to ignorance, before we can consider said deity as an option for the source of the universe.


You see why this is an unthought question: hard Empirical Physical Evidence for the one who initiated the laws of physics and chemistry!!!


XxSabrinaxX:

Natural processes have yet to be ruled out. All you theists do is look at the universe first and then attempt to define your god to suit the universe's features. This is dishonest! Demonstrate YOUR deity first.

Notice how in all my arguments, I have never once asserted that a source is impossible. All I've stated is that we can NOT know if there's a source, and even if we do, we can NOT know the nature of the source. Am I asking for too much, hmm? sad


Smartest thing you have said in this thread after two posts of complete bull$hit! Atheists do not assert that which they can NOT know. Yes, we are blind to your god and blind to your inane and unsubstantiated assertions. When you come up with some REAL evidence for the origin of the universe as relating to your god, everyone will be able to see it, not just you. When you begin demonstrating your god with facts and evidence, not the God of the Gaps bull$hit, we will all be able to see it. Until then, you're just a puddle struggling in the ground and amazed at how the shape of the ground was made exactly for him. Pathetic really, if I do say so myself. Still, I believe if you are beginning to recognize blindness in atheists, perhaps you can begin to see it in yourself and stop making stupid assertions based on sh*t you know nothing about.

Blubber-brain blabbermouth said,

Don't be a cowardly strawman. Insert the words, without facts and evidence and you are spot on target.

Are you getting smarter? You almost understand. You should hang around these parts for some time. You might catch on smiley wink


It's about time people stopped going to the wrong shops to sell their snake oil.

I can see you getting emotional here!



XxSabrinaxX:

Once more a couple of theists come in here and make crazy assertions about their god using physics. Assertions, that if taken to the land of academia and physics, and empirically verified to be true, would result in a Nobel Prize!

I do not see a Nobel. Neither do I see any sign of links to peer reviewed research evidencing any deity. Nothing on any news network puzzlingly. Even stranger, the Vatican seems to have missed all this news. No massed throngs in St Peter's being addressed by a jubilant pontiff.

NO! Just a bunch of Billy No-Names making unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims and pulling out false analogies from their arse like scraps of spaghetti. If only we could piece all this together really. LOL. Woo woo overload indeed!

Therefore, the assertions are nonsense.
Sorry, there is no new assertion.
Just plain knowledge accessible to everyone. The implication of what you've always known as theory was just pointed out to you. Knowing you Atheists on NL, you would have torn me to shreds if you had a better counter opinion.

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:02pm On Sep 27, 2019
LordReed:


This says nothing about what came before. You don't know anything about what came before even if you obtained the entropy value at the start of the universe.

Keep running.

So?
Can you give an example of how a low entropy state of a closed system began high without addition of energy from the outside system?

Whatever came before initiated the creation of the universe. Whatever came before is not subject to the laws of nature. Whatever came before seem to be intelligent.

Only an ostrich will close its eyes to the possibility of the SOURCE existing by burying its head in the sand and wishing that something would happen to make the knowledge unreal.
Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 3:48pm On Sep 27, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:

So what?

Even if what you postulate is correct, that does not prove a god. The proper conclusion is a result concerning Physics. But once you have established that (I can, but I am not going to waste my time checking if it is possible) you still have to plug in your god, and that act of inserting a god must be accompanied with substance and proof.

Claiming all sorts of things about entropy is one thing, arriving at a god conclusion is another!


How thick are you? Really?

"You can NOT know what is outside the house". "You can NOT compare that which is inside with that which is outside". "All Physics breaks down at Planck Time".

Learn to f*cking read.


The only thing you've succeeded in accomplishing here is differentiate theism from atheism - something I already knew!

All I'm asking from you clowns is that objective hard empirical evidence be demonstrated for YOUR claimed deity, without false analogies, word salads, confirmation bias and appeals to ignorance, before we can consider said deity as an option for the source of the universe. Natural processes have yet to be ruled out. All you theists do is look at the universe first and then attempt to define your god to suit the universe's features. This is dishonest! Demonstrate YOUR deity first.

Notice how in all my arguments, I have never once asserted that a source is impossible. All I've stated is that we can NOT know if there's a source, and even if we do, we can NOT know the nature of the source. Am I asking for too much, hmm? sad


Smartest thing you have said in this thread after two posts of complete bull$hit! Atheists do not assert that which they can NOT know. Yes, we are blind to your god and blind to your inane and unsubstantiated assertions. When you come up with some REAL evidence for the origin of the universe as relating to your god, everyone will be able to see it, not just you. When you begin demonstrating your god with facts and evidence, not the God of the Gaps bull$hit, we will all be able to see it. Until then, you're just a puddle struggling in the ground and amazed at how the shape of the ground was made exactly for him. Pathetic really, if I do say so myself. Still, I believe if you are beginning to recognize blindness in atheists, perhaps you can begin to see it in yourself and stop making stupid assertions based on sh*t you know nothing about.

Blubber-brain blabbermouth said,

Don't be a cowardly strawman. Insert the words, without facts and evidence and you are spot on target.

Are you getting smarter? You almost understand. You should hang around these parts for some time. You might catch on smiley wink


It's about time people stopped going to the wrong shops to sell their snake oil.

Once more a couple of theists come in here and make crazy assertions about their god using physics. Assertions, that if taken to the land of academia and physics, and empirically verified to be true, would result in a Nobel Prize!

I do not see a Nobel. Neither do I see any sign of links to peer reviewed research evidencing any deity. Nothing on any news network puzzlingly. Even stranger, the Vatican seems to have missed all this news. No massed throngs in St Peter's being addressed by a jubilant pontiff.

NO! Just a bunch of Billy No-Names making unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims and pulling out false analogies from their arse like scraps of spaghetti. If only we could piece all this together really. LOL. Woo woo overload indeed!

Therefore, the assertions are nonsense.
Who do you seek to impress with this long write up of 99% bullshit and 1% inquiry.
The topic was "Who created God" and I demonstrated to you how the question is invalid to a theist, its the atheist headache.
Thank God you understood that portion.
Now, to the "Prove your God with facts and evidence".
What type of evidence would convince you, what type of fact? As far as I know, Yinka has been twisting you in and out with the same science you trust. The same physics you thought its gat your back. Hahahahahahaha, don't take it personal, you cant stand the heat.
Go to your coven, exactly what shadeyinka postulated and backed up with science was laid down there. Read from page 196 of your homely " Non-christain thread". It's the main reason why the place is now like a graveyard, quiet for they had been silenced.
Go and fortify yourself. On another thread, Alhaji LordReed is taking measurable steps,.digressing and cowardly

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 4:22pm On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:

Can you give an example of how a low entropy state of a closed system began high without addition of energy from the outside system?

Whatever came before initiated the creation of the universe. Whatever came before is not subject to the laws of nature. Whatever came before seem to be intelligent.

Only an ostrich will close its eyes to the possibility of the SOURCE existing by burying its head in the sand and wishing that something would happen to make the knowledge unreal.

1. How do you know that the universe is a closed system?

2. How can you infer that because it is a closed system it cannot have arisen from an infinite loop of causation (infinite regress)?

3. How can you know that there was only a single source of this energy that was supplied to a closed system?

4. How can you know that the source of this energy is an intelligent being?

Only the deluded will claim knowledge of something they can't possibly have knowledge of.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 4:25pm On Sep 27, 2019
Blabbermouth:

.
Go and fortify yourself. On another thread, Alhaji LordReed is taking measurable steps,.digressing and cowardly

Look at this deluded dreamer. LMFAO!
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 6:36pm On Sep 27, 2019
I asked you one question and instead of replying, you brought out four of your own.

Ok o!

LordReed:


1. How do you know that the universe is a closed system?

Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system ; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).

https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html


LordReed:

2. How can you infer that because it is a closed system it cannot have arisen from an infinite loop of causation (infinite regress)?
Now you admit it's a closed system.

Answer:
Because first and second law of thermodynamics would be violated.
A closed system would need energy from the outside to restart a cycle. This is a violation of the definition of a closed system

LordReed:

3. How can you know that there was only a single source of this energy that was supplied to a closed system?
A source could either be localized at a point about a closed system OR encompassing the closed system.

If the Source is Encompassing(even if it is a single source) , it is impossible to determine if it is a single source or not unless you can see the whole of the source acting on the closed system.

If the Source is localized, it may be possible if the applied force is directional such that the universe should be expanding asymmetrically. This asymmetric expansion of the universe has not yet been observed in the Lab.

Logically, we are prone then to believe that the source is Encompassing.


LordReed:

4. How can you know that the source of this energy is an intelligent being?
A number of factors suggest that the Source is intelligent and not just a Force
1. The big bang appears to be a controlled expansion rather than an explosion
2. The DNA of living things appears to be a library of "computer code". It is impossible for a computer code to self generate itself. A code involve logics, data and instructions (this doesn't happen by accident)
3. Consciousness/Self awareness is not just chemical or electronic interactions. Consciousness can only accurate when an entity can feel (pain and pleasure) and can choose to either by Logics or Emotion



LordReed:

Only the deluded will claim knowledge of something they can't possibly have knowledge of.

Only the deluded will refuse knowledge of something they've chosen not to have knowledge of
Re: Who Created God? by Blabbermouth: 7:25pm On Sep 27, 2019
LordReed:


1. How do you know that the universe is a closed system?

2. How can you infer that because it is a closed system it cannot have arisen from an infinite loop of causation (infinite regress)?

3. How can you know that there was only a single source of this energy that was supplied to a closed system?

4. How can you know that the source of this energy is an intelligent being?

Only the deluded will claim knowledge of something they can't possibly have knowledge of.
See questions!!!
Oga, you are not informed. Your philosophy is outdated.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 7:32pm On Sep 27, 2019
shadeyinka:
I asked you one question and instead of replying, you brought out four of your own.

Ok o!

You insinuated that the universe is a closed system thats why I had to ask.



Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system ; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).

https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html

So now you are saying the universe is isolated? Do you realize what that means?


Now you admit it's a closed system.

Answer:
Because first and second law of thermodynamics would be violated.
A closed system would need energy from the outside to restart a cycle. This is a violation of the definition of a closed system

No you did. First you say it is closed then isolated now closed. Which is it?

BTW even if the universe is closed it still doesn't negate the possibility of an infinite regression of causation.


A source could either be localized at a point about a closed system OR encompassing the closed system.

If the Source is Encompassing(even if it is a single source) , it is impossible to determine if it is a single source or not unless you can see the whole of the source acting on the closed system.

If the Source is localized, it may be possible if the applied force is directional such that the universe should be expanding asymmetrically. This asymmetric expansion of the universe has not yet been observed in the Lab.

Logically, we are prone then to believe that the source is Encompassing.

Ok so you admit this is just conjecture? You have no real data showing whether there is one or more sources?



A number of factors suggest that the Source is intelligent and not just a Force
1. The big bang appears to be a controlled expansion rather than an explosion
2. The DNA of living things appears to be a library of "computer code". It is impossible for a computer code to self generate itself. A code involve logics, data and instructions (this doesn't happen by accident)
3. Consciousness/Self awareness is not just chemical or electronic interactions. Consciousness can only accurate when an entity can feel (pain and pleasure) and can choose to either by Logics or Emotion

1. You know this how?
2. What has DNA got to do with the source of energy that started the universe?
3. How can this be the case if this source is disembodied?





Only the deluded will refuse knowledge of something they've chosen not to have knowledge of

Only the deluded think that their conjectures cannot be refuted.
Re: Who Created God? by LordReed(m): 7:43pm On Sep 27, 2019
Blabbermouth:

See questions!!!
Oga, you are not informed. Your philosophy is outdated.

Are you drunk or intoxicated in some manner? Or are you on hallucinogenics? Substance abuse is bad for your health.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 8:01pm On Sep 27, 2019
LordReed:


You insinuated that the universe is a closed system thats why I had to ask.

So now you are saying the universe is isolated? Do you realize what that means?
No you did. First you say it is closed then isolated now closed. Which is it?
You asked a question and I replied you!

In a closed system, the matter within the system is constant but, energy is allowed to be transferred from system to surroundings and vice versa. In an isolated system, neither matter nor energy transfer between a system and its surroundings are allowed.

In a proper sense, the universe is isolated. In an improper sense, closed.


LordReed:

BTW even if the universe is closed it still doesn't negate the possibility of an infinite regression of causation.
Then you have to prove it and stop repeating the same phrase over and over again.

LordReed:

Ok so you admit this is just conjecture? You have no real data showing whether there is one or more sources?
Just like you have real data to support either the BBT or the gravitational singleton.

LordReed:

1. You know this how?
I've answered you this before!

LordReed:

2. What has DNA got to do with the source of energy that started the universe?
Conscious and Intelligent Programmer
LordReed:

3. How can this be the case if this source is disembodied?
The source is at Higher dimension of existence (so, to you in 3D you see "a disembodied being" : which is impossible in your 3D existence).

A 3D existence can comprehend 2D or 1D existence, but the reverse is impossible. For a 1D or 2D existence is just a mere subset of 3D existence.

Let me give you a test:
Can you describe visually how existence in 4D or 5D will look like?



LordReed:

Only the deluded think that their conjectures cannot be refuted.
Only the deluded think that their conjectures cannot be refuted.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (19) (Reply)

Pay Your Tithe Or Save A Relative's Life? / Why Does God Refer To Himself In The Plural In Genesis 1:26 And 3:22? / Which Came First...christianity Or Islam?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 722
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.